Detail Action
This office action is a response to an application filed on 08/28/2024.
Claims 1- 10 are pending for examination.
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Drawings
The drawings were received on 09/03/2024. These drawings are acceptable for examination proceedings.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper time wise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP §§ 706.02(l) (1) - 706.02(l) (3) for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/process/file/efs/guidance/eTD-info-I.jsp.
Claims 1- 10 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory obviousness- type double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-5, and 11- 15 of U.S. Patent No. 12120754 B2. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because claims of the application are an obvious variant of the claims of the Patent. It is clear that all the elements of the application claims 1-10 are to be found in patent claims and recite language that a person of ordinary skill in the art would recognize as substantially identical subject matter. The reasons for concluding that the invention defined in the independent claim 1 of application would have been an obvious variation to have modified by claim 1 of conflicting patent application, and thus, it is not patentably distinct from claims of the patent.
Instant Claim 1 of 18/818323
Conflicting Claim 1 of 12/120754 B2
1. A method to execute an automated mitigation for a problematic device, the method comprising:
accessing data, at an assigning authority engine on an on-vehicle device, the data from at least one source of a plurality of sources, the plurality of sources comprising engine data, mobile device data, connected vehicle device (CVD data, location management unit (LMU) data, and hours of service (HOS) data
1. A method for utilizing data from on-vehicle and off-vehicle sources to identify problematic devices and to execute automated mitigations, the method comprising:
accessing data, at an assigning authority for a vehicle, the data from at least one source of a plurality of sources, the plurality of sources comprising engine data, mobile device data, location management unit (LMU) data, and hours of service (HOS) data;
analyzing, at the assigning authority engine, the data based on a plurality of pre-defined patterns to identify a problematic device;
analyzing, at the assigning authority, the data based on a plurality of pre-defined patterns to identify a malfunctioning device;
generating, at the assigning authority engine, a mitigation strategy for the problematic device; and
generating, at the assigning authority, a mitigation strategy for the malfunctioning device; and
transmitting, from the assigning authority engine, the mitigation strategy for the problematic device.
transmitting, from the assigning authority, the mitigation strategy for the malfunctioning device.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or non-obviousness.
Claims 1- 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wellman et al. (US 20120046982 A1), hereinafter “Wellman”; and in further view of Nielsen et al. (US 20070173993 A1), hereinafter “Nielsen”.
Regarding claim 1, Wellman teaches A method to execute an automated mitigation for a problematic device, the method comprising [Wellman: Abstract teaches method of implementing an automated diagnostic checklist for materials handling vehicles comprises detecting, by a processor on a materials handling vehicle, an error in operation of the materials handling vehicle and initiating an automated diagnostic check of a component of the materials handling vehicle in response to detecting the error]:
analyzing, at the assigning authority engine, the data based on a plurality of pre-defined patterns to identify a problematic device [Fig. 9, 10; Par. 96- 104 teaches of checking and recording operational items to identify errors (Par. 79, 150) for corrective action (Par. 164); [Wellman: Figs. 6, 7; Par. 6, 59 – 72 teaches of monitoring information across the network vehicle bus for component usage data];
generating, at the assigning authority engine, a mitigation strategy for the problematic device [Par. 160 -165 teaches perform cleanup operations and correcting the condition]; and transmitting, from the assigning authority engine, the mitigation strategy for the problematic device [Par. 5 teaches the method may further comprise transmitting the obtained event information to a third-party computer system associated with the manufacturer of the corresponding materials handling vehicle and receiving a message from the third-party computer system indicating that a service technician has been notified of the error].
PNG
media_image1.png
618
480
media_image1.png
Greyscale
However, Wellman does not teach accessing data, at an assigning authority engine on an on-vehicle device, the data from at least one source of a plurality of sources, the plurality of sources comprising engine data, mobile device data, connected vehicle device (CVD data, location management unit (LMU) data, and hours of service (HOS) data
Nevertheless, Nielsen, in the similar field of endeavor, teaches accessing data, at an assigning authority engine on an on-vehicle device, the data from at least one source of a plurality of sources, the plurality of sources comprising engine data, mobile device data, connected vehicle device (CVD data, location management unit (LMU) data, and hours of service (HOS) data [Nielsen: Fig. 4, 13; Par. 43- 46; 06- 108 teaches receiving dataset comprising fleet management data which included diagnostic data, positioning data, etc.].
PNG
media_image2.png
442
624
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill at the time when the invention was made to utilize the teachings of Nielsen to receive vehicle data. One in the art would be motivated to utilize the teachings of Nielsen in the Wellman system with a motivation to make this modification in order to receive data to enable conditions identified from vehicle to be classified and provide actionable metrics to inform [Nielsen: Par. 21].
Regarding claim 2, the combined Wellman in view of Nielsen teaches all the limitations in the parent claim 1. Wellman in view of Nielsen further teaches wherein comprising performing the mitigation strategy for the problematic device [Wellman: Par. 172 teaches of updates to a vehicle control program or other software controlled mobile asset feature can be wirelessly transmitted to the asset via the mobile asset information linking device 38. The processor provided within the interface controller 50 or otherwise integrated into the mobile asset may then interact with the appropriate system components via the CAN bus or other suitable network system 68 to implement the software update, e.g., an upgrade, revision, patch or other modification]
Regarding claim 3, the combined Wellman in view of Nielsen teaches all the limitations in the parent claim 1. Wellman in view of Nielsen further teaches wherein the mitigation strategy is a plurality of actions [Wellman: Par. 172]
Regarding claim 4, the combined Wellman in view of Nielsen teaches all the limitations in the parent claim 1. Wellman in view of Nielsen further teaches wherein he mitigation strategy is a single action [Wellman: Par. 172]
Regarding claim 5, the combined Wellman in view of Nielsen teaches all the limitations in the parent claim 1. Wellman in view of Nielsen further teaches wherein the malfunctioning device is an on-vehicle mobile device or a CVD [Wellman: Fig. 5A].
Regarding claim 6, the claim is interpreted and rejected for the same reason as set forth for claim 1.
Regarding claim 7, the claim is interpreted and rejected for the same reason as set forth for claim 2.
Regarding claim 8, the claim is interpreted and rejected for the same reason as set forth for claim 3.
Regarding claim 9, the claim is interpreted and rejected for the same reason as set forth for claim 4.
Regarding claim 10, the claim is interpreted and rejected for the same reason as set forth for claim 5.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record (see attached PTO-892) and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
A shortened statutory period for reply to this action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of the action. An extension of time may be obtained under 37 CFR 1.136(a). However, in no event, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KYAW Z SOE whose telephone number is (571)270-0304. The examiner can normally be reached on 9am-5pm.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Charles C Jiang can be reached on 5712707191. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/KYAW Z SOE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2412
